Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 96 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing Executive Committee Of Vaish Degree ... vs Lakshmi Narain And Ors on 12 December, 1975

Naresh Kumar vs Eureka Forbes Limited And Ors on 18 April, 2026

30. To support our view that cases Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli & Ors. Vs. Lakshmi Narain & Ors. (supra) and The Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Kumbakonam Vs. M. Parthasarathi (supra) could not have been relied upon in case of private employer terminating the services of its employee invoking the terms of the contract, it would be advantageous to refer to the judgment of Apex Court in AIR 2005 SC 3202 Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V.Sadasivan & Ors. In Binny Ltd.‟s case (Supra), the termination was challenged by employees and apart from other judgments, applicability of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr. (Supra) and Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors.‟ (Supra), was also discussed in detail in case of private employment where specific performance of the contract was sought to be CSDJ 504/2021 Naresh Kumar vs. Eureka Forbes Ltd. & Ors. 18 of 22 enforced challenging clause 9 which was similar to clause 10 in the present case. In para 25 to 28 and 31 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held as under :-
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Rafat Khan vs M/S Teckinfo Solutions Private Ltd on 8 January, 2016

18. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussions, in my considered opinion, the defendant has been able to prove that suit of the Civil Suit No.800/11 Rafat Khan Vs M/s Techinfo Solutions Pvt Ltd Judgment dated 08.01.2016 Page no. 57 of 67 plaintiff for declaration as to subsistence of contract is not maintainable. In fact, even in the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shri Avineshwar Sawhney v. M/s J.K.Industries Ltd. (2008) 152 DLT 712(DB) relied upon by the plaintiff, it was held that if it is found that the termination is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of employment, the Civil Court is empowered to give a declaration to this effect, however, in that eventuality if the person is not under any protective umbrella insofar as continuity of service is concerned, he would be entitled to damages. It is thus clear that in cases which do not fall under the exceptions carved out in Vaish Degree College case (Supra), the power of the court to give declaration is limited to declaration as to termination being in violation of terms and conditions of contract entitling the employee for damages and no declaration as to subsistence of contract in such cases can be given by the civil Court.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Rafat Khan vs . Techinfo Solutions Pvt. Ltd. on 10 February, 2012

19.In the event of the plaintiff succeeding in the suit, he would be continuing in employment. That his services have already been terminated has already been noted above. That the defendant is not willing to continue with the employment of the plaintiff is clear from the stand of the parties. Hence through the suit the plaintiff is essentially 9 of 12 trying to continue in employment against the consent of the employer. Such an order would inevitably amount to enforcement of the contract for service. I find no merit in the contention of the plaintiff that his suit is merely for declaration that his services have not been terminated and that this is not a suit for enforcement for contract of service. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vaish Degree College vs. Lakshmi Narain (1976) 2 SCC 58 squarely applies to the case. In paragraph no. 18 of the judgment, it has been held as under:
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R/O C-713 vs Church'S Auxiliary For Social Action on 28 January, 2008

8. It is argued that there is no statute governs the Suit No.568/07 7 service conditions of the defendant. Further relying on Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shimla & Ors v/s Lakshmi Narain & Ors. - AIR 1976 SC 888 Ld. counsel for plaintiff submits that defendant is not a statutory body. In response to the allegations by the plaintiff being unfairly treated by the defendant, Ld. counsel for defendant has argued that allegations of malafide has to be specifically pleaded and separately proved.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Bharat Bhushan Arya vs The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion ... on 19 August, 2016

10. Ld.   Trial   Court   has   therefore   rightly   exercised   its   discretion against   grant   of   interim   injunction   by   referring   to   judgments   of   Hon'ble Supreme   Court   of  India   in  cases   titled  "S.  Dutt,  Dr.  Vs.   University   of Delhi"  ;  "Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain"  and  "Nandganj   Sirohi   Sugar   Co.   Ltd.   Vs.   Badri   Nath   Dixit"
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next